(Des Moines) The Iowa Senate approved legislation Monday allowing Iowa residents to seek district court action during a public sector union’s recertification process.
Senate File 472, which passed in a 32-15 vote, would allow Iowans to petition a district court to order public employers to provide lists of their employees to the state as part of the union bargaining process.
Under the the state’s 2017 collective bargaining law, government employers are required to submit a list of their employees to the Employment Appeal Board (EAB) before recertification votes in which workers are asked if they want to continue being represented by their union before the next contract negotiation period. If a list is not submitted to the EAB, the recertification election will not occur, and contract negotiations occur with the existing union representation.
The bill would make failure to submit a list of employees illegal. It would allow Iowa residents to petition a district court for a writ of mandamus compelling the public employer to provide a list to EAB within 10 days of receiving notice of intent to conduct an election from the EAB. The bill limits the timeframe for petitioning the court in these cases to 60 days.
Supporters of the legislation said in earlier meetings the measure was necessary as some public unions were purposefully not submitting lists of employees so existing union representation would retain control over contract negotiations. Sen. Jason Schultz, R-Schleswig, highlighted the subject as a “teacher union issue,” claiming that school administrators were choosing not to submit employee lists because of their loyalty to the teachers’ union.
During floor debate, Sen. Adrian Dickey, R-Packwood, said statistics from the Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing found that from 2020-2023, nearly half of the recertification elections that were called to take place did not occur because employers did not submit lists. He argued the measure would not create any issues for public employers that are abiding by current Iowa law, but would ensure public sector employees’ voices are heard through the recertification process.
Sen. Molly Donahue, D-Cedar Rapids, said the bill “creates an unnecessary financial burden on our school districts, because sometimes they choose not to turn in that list — not because they sympathize with educators or with the union — but because they know that this is a redundant process and it’s costing money.”
Donahue said that the EAB recertification process overall was “unnecessary” and a waste of resources and time for the state, noting that in more than 98%, of cases, public sector workers have voluntarily kept their union representation.
“If we truly care about the efficiency and cutting wasteful spending, the logical solution isn’t to add more hurdles, it is to eliminate the entire system of (EAB) recertification,” she said. “Teachers and public employees already have a choice, and they get to use their voice every single year … by choosing whether or not to join the union, or if they’re already a member, whether or not to stay a member. No one forces anybody into a union. They’ve made that decision already. The current system is nothing more than an expensive and redundant exercise in bureaucracy. So let’s start focusing on some real solutions that empower our educators, strengthen our schools and use taxpayer dollars wisely.”
Donahue argued the bill was not supported by any educators, public sector workers or groups representing them, but was a measure pushed by conservative organizations that serves “no real public benefit other than to try to get school districts to lose their rights to be represented by a union.”
Dickey said the measure was not a “union-busting bill” but a “pro-worker bill.”
“The fact is, this legislation has just as much opportunity for a union to be formed as dissolved,” Dickey said. “For opponents of this legislation to complain that it’s too expensive for public sector unions or public sector employers, then all they need to do is follow the law, and no cost will be placed upon them.”
The measure moves to the Iowa House for further consideration.
